K. MOHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SMT. C. MADHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER purchased the land in dispute under a registered sale deed dated 14.10.2004 executed by Doomappa and 11 others vide Annexure -A. Respondent No. 4 claiming to be grand -daughter of Balappa, the grantee of the land, filed an application under S. 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short 'the Act') vide Annexure -C, before the 3rd respondent, to declare the said sale deed as null and void and for resumption of land free from all encumbrances and for restoration. In response to the notice issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed statement of objections, as at Annexure -D. The 3rd respondent upon examination of the record of the case rejected the application, finding that the alienation of the land in dispute has taken place more than 30 years prior to coming into force of the Act and that the provisions of the Act are not attracted. An order as at Annexure -E was passed dismissing the application on 06.08.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under S. 5A of the Act before the 2nd respondent vide Annexure -F. To the appeal memorandum, statement of objection vide Annexure -G was filed. The 2nd respondent having formed an opinion in the first instance, that there is no denial of fact that the appellant belonged to scheduled caste, having perused the record and by making a reference to the decision in the case of Bheemanna vs. Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga and others, ILR 2010 Kar 2011, held, that in the instant case, the land was granted during the year 1938 subject to non -alienation condition for ever and the land having been alienated under a sale deed dated 10.05.1948 and resold the land on 13.05.1959 and the property having been subsequently sold on 14.10.2004, all the sale deeds are null and void and hence, purchaser had not derived any right, title or interest on the land in question. As a result, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner challenged in the appeal was set aside and the land was ordered to be resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances and for restoration in favour of the original grantee or his legal heirs, as per an order dated 02.07.2012 vide Annexure -H. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner -purchaser of the property has filed this writ petition. Sri. A. Madhusudhana Rao, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that finding recorded by the 2nd respondent in the order, as at Annexure -H is perverse and illegal. Learned counsel by taking me through the record of the case and placing reliance on certain decisions submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and hence, warrants interference. The decisions which the learned counsel placed reliance are: 1) Sri Ramachandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2011) 1 KCCR 553 .

(2.) ) 1993 (3) KLJ 346 (DB), V. Muniswamy Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and others.

(3.) ) Manchegowda and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1151 .